Does CMI believe in an old earth?

Published: 6 February 2010(GMT+10)

With the word getting out in the United States about
CMI’s upcoming Creation Supercamp, it wasn’t that surprising
that we received an enquiry asking where we stand on the age-of-the-earth issue:

Dear Creation Ministries International,

Since I was given word about your conference, I wanted to know if you teach an “old-earth”
creationism. After reading Hugh Ross, I am convinced that our God is not deceptive
and what tests old really is old.

This could be a very long email to argue the case for a young-Earth and what is
defined as old.

Firstly, the earth is old—in the order of several thousands of years
(see The earth: how old does it look?).
I suggest that the only reason one might not think that is old is because we accept
the secular methodology and interpretations of the geologic record of slow gradual
uniformitarianism. That’s where the idea of millions of years came from in
the first place. However, it is now well established that the same geology that
was thought to take millions of years can now be formed rapidly as a result of catastrophic
processes. You would do well to read more on this subject rather than presume that
‘tests’ can be performed to determine the age of things. This is clearly
not the case. Please take a look at our Q and A section on our website,
otherwise you risk believing in half truths of such things, particularly if you
have not heard sound cogent arguments for a young-earth creation. For example, see
Geology Questions and Answers. Our
website, Creation.com contains over 32 years worth of creation research
and over 7,000 fully searchable articles on this subject matter. My point being,
that the ‘young-earth’ view as you might call it, is not just held by
a small group of scientists. This should immediately make one question the views
of Hugh Ross etc.

Although Hugh Ross might be popular in certain isolated church circles, his view
is a fringe view among the evangelical community of scientists.

With respect to Hugh Ross, his revisionism of the Bible is not supported by the
text itself. For example, where does the Bible actually mention millions of years
or indicate that the earth is in the order of billions of years? You will not gain
that impression by reading the text itself. These are outside views imposed upon
the Scriptures, because Ross accepts the science of people who actually start outside
the Bible. Ross has also wriggled around
the issue of death before the Fall, which a millions-of-years view clearly
violates. And as such, it obviates the very reason Christ came to this earth to
pay the penalty of death for our sins. Here are just some of the articles discussing
Ross’ Progressive Creationism position.

Although Hugh Ross might be popular in certain isolated church circles, his view
is a fringe view among the evangelical community of scientists. Creation Ministries
International employs more scientists than any Christian organization in the world.
All science, whether secular or Christian should be subject to peer review, and
in this respect Ross’s views have failed the litmus test—both scientifically
and theologically. And as you can see there is a huge body of work by a range of
Christians (not all from this ministry) that take exception to the dubious apologetics
of Hugh Ross.

What happens if the big bang loses favour in the secular world? … Will progressive
creationists re-interpret their re-intepretation of Genesis?

I’m sorry if this comes across as a little strong, but I get very concerned
when I hear Christians accepting such views. Ross has not responded to his critics
and we are all still waiting for his refutation of the book Refuting Compromise,
which deals specifically with his claims. This book has been described as the
most comprehensive scientific and theological defense of a literal, historical Genesis
ever written. I recommend you obtain a copy.

On the surface, his apparent harmony of secular science and Scripture sounds appealing
until one realizes that the very Gospel of Christ is undermined in the process.
You may not be aware of why this is so. Therefore, I encourage you to consider coming
to the camp, where you will hear leading scientists help us understand that we can
fully trust and understand the book of Genesis (and the whole Bible) without resorting
to manmade ideas and without abandoning real science as shown in this article:

And finally, I agree that God is not deceptive. Therefore what we see in God’s
world should be consistent with God’s Word. As I’ve stated, you will
not see the expression millions of years (MoY) in Scripture, therefore if the earth
is old then God would be deceptive as it would be inconsistent with what we can
plainly read in His Word. For example, if you were to look at the Gospel of Luke
you can trace Jesus’ ancestry all the way back to Adam. There would have to
be millions of missing genealogies in the text to squeeze MoY in there somehow.
See also Biblical chronogenealogies.

Moreover, the very words of Jesus in Mark 10:6 tell us that God created them male and female
at the beginning of creation. In a 14 billion year old universe as Ross claims,
with man being created only a few thousand years ago as indicated by the biblical
chronologies, it would actually put man at the end of creation (in other words recently)
not at the beginning (14 billion years etc.) I don’t think Jesus the Creator
(John 1) would make such fundamental errors about such things.
See Jesus and the age of the world,
and But from the beginning
of … the institution of marriage? which refutes Ross’ arguments
against this.

It would be good to hear all the necessary information if one is to make an informed
decision, especially when the Gospel itself is at stake.

All of mankind’s recorded history and writings only go back a few thousand
years. This also supports the Bible’s view. If Homo sapiens have been around
for 150–160,000 years as Ross claims, where is humankind’s written history?
Every time the secular science changes its dates in this regard, progressive creationists
change their interpretation of Scripture to suit. For example, Ross accepts big
bang cosmology. The big bang of 20 years ago is nothing like the big bang of today.
In addition, today there are probably a dozen different versions of the big bang.
Which one will Ross hang his theology on? And what happens if the big bang loses
favour in the secular world? Already many secular cosmologists point out all the
fudge factors necessary to preserve it. Will progressive creationists re-interpret
their re-intepretation of Genesis? See also
Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics?

This all demonstrates that the Bible is not the authority for progressive creationists
as they claim it to be. It places secular science above the Word of God. It is reminiscent
of the man that built his house on the sand that Jesus warned about in Matthew 7:24–26. One has to keep revising one’s
interpretation of Scripture in light of modern ‘science’. So the problem
is, which view is one going to hang one’s theology on?

I hope you can make the camp where you can interact with the speakers and ask them
all these types of tough questions. It would be good to hear all the necessary information
if one is to make an informed decision, especially when the Gospel
itself is at stake.

Related Articles

Where are you while reading this article? In the privacy of your own home? The internet, and this site in particular, can be a powerful tool for reaching those who would never go to church. Keep the penetration going by supporting this outreach. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Everett C.,United States, 7 February 2010

Having read the response to a contact by someone who had read a book by Hugh Ross, I was reminded about my own experience. I “grew up in the church” but realized as a young adult that I didn’t believe the Bible. After asking God to show me the reason for my unbelief I “discovered” information from the modern young-earth creationist movement by listening to a radio interview. God revealed that my unbelief in the Bible was due to my belief in evolution (B.S. degree in geology).

The first creationist book that I found (the same day that I listened to the interview) was one by Henry Morris. Not long after reading that book I was saved by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Sometime later I read a book by Hugh Ross. I remember that as I read it something just didn’t seem right and I never finished it. I know now that the Holy Spirit was witnessing to me that I was reading error. I didn’t discover what Ross really believed for another several years.

I shudder to think where I would be now if I had first picked up Ross’ book without the indwelling Holy Spirit to point me to the Truth. I suspect that I was on my way to becoming an atheist, and I believe that Ross would have sped up the process.

Those who teach error and cause others to follow them into that error will have to account to the Creator and Savior who gave us His eyewitness account of the creation events in Genesis.

Melvin R.,United States, 6 March 2012

I just listened to Larry Touten interviewing Hugh Ross 3-6-12 for the second week and Ross indeed has accepted the secular view of the origin of the universe. He mentioned something about the seventh day being extended to `millions and millions` of years old after the six days of Creation. He seems obsessed and desperate to want to link, mix or inculcate his secular beliefs of science to appease the intellectual unbelievers who mock him behind his back. His secular friends don't want to accept Creation regardless, they want physical proof that will never be convincing enough, they are spiritually dead and cannot understand. Ross ought to be ashamed of himself trying to pass himself off as scholarly. The Scriptures is addressing the condition of the heart of man exclusively, most everything else are just peripherals accounts.